Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-05-2008, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

[The silence of the Talmud (re-compiled c.200 CE, and added to after)

Excuse me, but where are you getting this date for the Talmud in either its Palestinian or Babylonian forms?

Jeffrey

Toto · 04-05-2008, 04:30 PM

mm:

Quote:

The purpose of the question was to open for examination the interpretation of all ancient historical events before Nicaea, in which we can find evidence that there was a (historical) reaction (or specific commentary) to the new purported "Early Christian movement" -- at a larger scale than a single convert, perhaps an entire town or city, who may have reacted as a whole, which is a natural expectation of the diversity of politics. I dont think the Jewish people can offer any historical evidence in this regard

This is not how converstion typically happens, unless it is because a ruler has been converted and his subjects follow along, or an invading army creates the converts. Otherwise, studies indicate that conversion is an individual thing.

On the Talmud:

Did Jesus live 100 BC?

The Jesus the Jews Never Knew: Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the Quest of the Historical Jesus in Jewish Sources (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-05-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

mm:

Quote:

The purpose of the question was to open for examination the interpretation of all ancient historical events before Nicaea, in which we can find evidence that there was a (historical) reaction (or specific commentary) to the new purported "Early Christian movement" -- at a larger scale than a single convert, perhaps an entire town or city, who may have reacted as a whole, which is a natural expectation of the diversity of politics. I dont think the Jewish people can offer any historical evidence in this regard

This is not how converstion typically happens, unless it is because a ruler has been converted and his subjects follow along, or an invading army creates the converts. Otherwise, studies indicate that conversion is an individual thing.

On the Talmud:

Did Jesus live 100 BC?

Umm -- this is a work published in 1903 by the Theosophical Publishing Society! Hardly a bastion of scholarship on any subject, let alone the Talmud.

Quote:

The Jesus the Jews Never Knew: Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the Quest of the Historical Jesus in Jewish Sources (or via: amazon.co.uk)

If you are speaking of Jesus in the Talmud (the Toldoth Yeshu is not part of the Talmud -- see here), see Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schafer available on Google Books here.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 04-05-2008, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

When I read "Church History" by Eusebius, I am confronted with the fact that " early Christianity" had no known history. Eusebius only provided erroneous and misleading information and masquerrades it as history, but it is complete fiction.

A little meditation upon this quite natural thought confronts us with the fact that it was not Eusebius who was doing the political masquerrading, since Eusebius was sponsored by The Boss, and it was Constantine who was doing the mocking. He was a robber and a brigand. And he got away with it because of his large successful and political army.

Christianity is an imperial invention, and also the invention of a Pontifex Maximus. The role of Pontifex Maximus was ancient and had rights and honours attached.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZOSIMUS

nb: describing a time in the rule of Gratian (later)

BOOK 4
Zosimus:

Upon this occasion it may not be improper to relate a circumstance which has some reference to the present part of my narration. Among the Romans, the persons who had the superintendence of sacred things were the Pontifices, whom we may term Gephyraei, if we translate the Latin word Pontifices, which signifies bridge-makers, into the Greek. The origin of that appellation was this : At a period before mankind were acquainted with the mode of worshipping by statues, some images of the gods were first made in Thessaly. As there were not then any temples (for the use of them was likewise then unknown), they fixed up those figures of the gods on a bridge over the river Peneus, and called those who sacrificed to the gods, Gephyraei, Priests of the Bridge, from the place where the images were first erected. Hence the Romans, deriving it from the Greeks, called their own priests Pontifices, and enacted a law, that kings, for the sake of dignity, should be considered of the number. The first of their kings who enjoyed this dignity was Numa Pompilius. After him it was conferred not only upon the kings but upon Octavianus and his successors in the Roman empire. Upon the elevation of any one to the imperial dignity, the pontifices brought him the priestly habit, and he was immediately styled, Pontifex Maximus, or chief priest. All former emperors, indeed, appeared gratified with the distinction, and willingly adopted the title. Even Constantine himself, when he was emperor, accepted it, although he was seduced from the path of rectitude in regard to sacred affairs, and had embraced the Christian faith. In like manner did all who succeeded him to Valentinian and Valens. But when the Pontifices, in the accustomed manner, brought the sacred robe to Gratian, he, considering it a garment unlawful for a Christian to use, rejected their offer. When the robe was restored to the priests who brought it, their chief is said to have made this observation, If the emperor refuses to become Pontifex, we shall soon make one.

We know Christianity hit the streets hard and running with effect from c.312 CE. We know that Eusebius most likely penned his Historia Ecclesiastica and other works (including the Dear Poor Christian Martyrs) during the period from 312 to 324 CE, with various revisions until 337 CE, etc.

We know that there was an extremely large explosion of reaction of public opinion for and against "christianity" and with a corresponding statistical explosion of the archaeological evidence, with effect from the "Council" of Nicaea in 325 CE. But what we do not know for sure is the length of the fuse.

Quote:

This is Eusebius, writing around the 4th century, on the works of Philo of Alexandria who lived up to the middle of the 1st century.

Church History 2.18.7

Quote:

After these was composed by him the work [I]On the Contemplative Life, or On Suppliants, from which we have drawn the life of the apostolic men.........

But upon reading On the Contemplative Life or On Suppliants by Philo, there is not a single word on any apostles whatsoever. There is no mention of Jesus, the apostles, Peter, James the Just, or any Paul. In fact, Philo expounds on the Theraputae, who have no affiliation with the apostles, Jesus or Paul.

" Church History" by Eusebius is an indictment against the "history" of Christianity.

If Eusebius wrote fiction then it is possible that Constantine was the first christian and Eusebius was the second christian, and the first three centuries were entirely free of "constantinian basilicas" and "christians".

Either that, or we have some underground sect in the period between the compilation of the re-foundation of the Talmudic sources (c.200 CE) and the rise of the warlord Constantine 312 CE to Pontifex Maximus, providing the impetus in an underground manner, the apperance of christianity. One does not need to look to far to find the sect of the followers of the Iranian prophet Mani, who served under Shapur I but whom was executed at a change of political government in Iran c.272 CE. His followers were then persecuted in the empire under Diocletion, and also the writings of Mani and the followers of Mani were to be burnt. This burning continued to the fifth century (if not later). Despite what Eusebius or his later continuators assert Mani had never heard of christianity. But everyone heard of it after 325 CE.

The invention of christianity in a later century provides one possible explanation for the evidence available to us. I have learnt here in discussions that the idea of a fictitious new testament, liberally interspersed with pagan wisdom philosophy, is not a novel idea.

Best wishes

Pete Brown

Solo · 04-05-2008, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

mm:

This is not how converstion typically happens, unless it is because a ruler has been converted and his subjects follow along, or an invading army creates the converts. Otherwise, studies indicate that conversion is an individual thing.

On the Talmud:

Did Jesus live 100 BC?

The Jesus the Jews Never Knew: Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the Quest of the Historical Jesus in Jewish Sources (or via: amazon.co.uk)

If you are speaking of Jesus in the Talmud (the Toldoth Yeshu is not part of the Talmud -- see here), see Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schafer available on Google Books here.

Jeffrey

Do not let yourself be fooled by the title, Jeffrey. Zindler's book has two large chapters on the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmud.

Jiri

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-05-2008, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

If you are speaking of Jesus in the Talmud (the Toldoth Yeshu is not part of the Talmud -- see here), see Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schafer available on Google Books here.

Jeffrey

Do not let yourself be fooled by the title, Jeffrey. Zindler's book has two large chapters on the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmud.

Jiri

So far as I can see, I didn't say it didn't discuss the Talmud. All I was intent to say is that one should not think that the TY is part of it. But more importantly, I trust that since you, unlike Pete, have read Zindler, you are amused by Pete's dating of the Talmud to c. 200 CE.

Jeffrey

Toto · 04-05-2008, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

mm:

...
Did Jesus live 100 BC?

Umm -- this is a work published in 1903 by the Theosophical Publishing Society! Hardly a bastion of scholarship on any subject, let alone the Talmud.

....

Meade was a scholarly Theosophist, and his work is free and footnoted. Peter Kirby thought enough of it to host it. That particular book has a discussion of Jewish-Christian relations in the middle ages and their impact on the Talmud.

aa5874 · 04-05-2008, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

A little meditation upon this quite natural thought confronts us with the fact that it was not Eusebius who was doing the political masquerrading, since Eusebius was sponsored by The Boss, and it was Constantine who was doing the mocking. He was a robber and a brigand. And he got away with it because of his large successful and political army.

Christianity is an imperial invention, and also the invention of a Pontifex Maximus. The role of Pontifex Maximus was ancient and had rights and honours attached.

We know Christianity hit the streets hard and running with effect from c.312 CE. We know that Eusebius most likely penned his Historia Ecclesiastica and other works (including the Dear Poor Christian Martyrs) during the period from 312 to 324 CE, with various revisions until 337 CE, etc.

We know that there was an extremely large explosion of reaction of public opinion for and against "christianity" and with a corresponding statistical explosion of the archaeological evidence, with effect from the "Council" of Nicaea in 325 CE. But what we do not know for sure is the length of the fuse.

The Council of Nicaea in 325 CE is an indication to me that Christianity or followers of Jesus predated Constantine. As far as I understand, the Council was called to meet to resolve theological or doctrinal issues with respect to Jesus and I have not been able so far to find any writer that have claimed the Council of Nicaea did not happen.

Presently, I rely on Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras and Origen, to consider that Christians, not necessarily followers of Jesus, were around as early as the 1st or 2nd century.

Solo · 04-05-2008, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

So far as I can see, I didn't say it didn't discuss the Talmud. All I was intent to say is that one should not think that the TY is part of it. But more importantly, I trust that since you, unlike Pete, have read Zindler, you are amused by Pete's dating of the Talmud to c. 200 CE.

Jeffrey

I do not know what "compilation of the re-foundation of Talmudic sources" means, so the joke is lost on me. For what it's worth, my sources tell me that the Rebbe completed the Jerusalem Mishnah in Tzipori in 219 CE.

Jiri

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-05-2008, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

So far as I can see, I didn't say it didn't discuss the Talmud. All I was intent to say is that one should not think that the TY is part of it. But more importantly, I trust that since you, unlike Pete, have read Zindler, you are amused by Pete's dating of the Talmud to c. 200 CE.

Jeffrey

I do not know what "compilation of the re-foundation of Talmudic sources" means, so the joke is lost on me. For what it's worth, my sources tell me that the Rebbe completed the Jerusalem Mishnah in Tzipori in 219 CE.

Jiri

Is there another Mishnah other than the one attributed to the work of Judah ha Nasi? See here.

Jeffrey

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.